Pages

Monday, October 19, 2009

The skeptical conundrum

Modern skeptics have staked out a self-refuting position on the history of Scripture. On the one hand, they insist that Scripture is historically unreliable. Unreliable, they assure us, because it was written long after the fact. Decades or centuries later. Written by men were didn’t witness the purported events they describe. Written by men who never knew anyone contemporaneous with the purported events they describe.

On the other hand, modern skeptics who say this are writing long after the fact. Millennia later. Skeptics who didn’t witness the purported events they deny. Skeptics who never knew anyone contemporaneous with the purported events they deny.

Interesting indeed... how would the skeptical reply? My guess is that the skeptical would reply by saying that he/she/it has this special thing called a method. Of course what he/she/it means by a method is something similar to standard methodological naturalism. The skeptical one would of course assume that he/she/it assumes nothing, and is using a method that keeps them from bias, but of course we know that they have already made their decision before hand... they have put God in the dock, and they decide what is reasonable, or not. If God doesn't measure up to our standard we cut some off the top, and maybe lop off what is below the knees. What do we have when we are finished? Something similar to James McGrath's god over at exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com. Of course no one could worship such an inert god, but I guess I could let him on one of my rides.

But it's not like skeptics claim that the *only* reason why it's false is because "we" (they) can detect (through form criticism, higher criticism etc.) the books were written long after the events took place. But also because of the (alleged) historical discrepancies, scientific errors and internal contradictions.

When you add all that up, it's "clear" to them that this set of documents are not supernatural in origin but natural. Not merely that there's no evidence is of supernatural origins (negative), but evidence that it cannot be from a supernatural origin that's supposed to be infallible/inerrant (positive).

"But it's not like skeptics claim that the *only* reason why it's false is because 'we' (they) can detect (through form criticism, higher criticism etc.) the books were written long after the events took place. But also because of the (alleged) historical discrepancies, scientific errors and internal contradictions."

You're missing the point. If the Bible is said to be historically unreliable because it was written so long after the purported events, then how would a critic living so long after the purported events be in any position, by that criterion, to impute historical discrepancies to Scripture? The critic wasn't an eyewitness. He didn't know any of the contemporaries. So he's exempting himself from his own criterion.

He's in no position to impute historical discrepancies to Scripture in the first place if the presupposition for any such attribution is the axiomatic assumption that those who write long after the fact are historically unreliable.

And the business about scientific errors or internal contradictions is irrelevant to the scope of my stated conundrum.

Okay, I'll try to stick with *historical* issue. History doesn't happen nor is it studied in a vacuum. They would also claim that there are archaeological, lingustic and cultural evidences that the Bible isn't historically accurate. There are alleged anachronistic words, and customs used/described in the Bible that show it's erroneous. There are archaeological discoveries that supposedly disprove the Bible's story too. The "raw uninterpreted and brute facts" (a nod to Van Til)neutrally testify against the Bible. They aren't biased human beings prone to error and dishonesty like we've experienced in ever age. From their perspective, why exclude the writers/compilers of the Bible?

The pseudo-science of "Higher Criticism" greatly resembles psychoanalysis in its pompous non-scientificness, and is actually greatly dependent on it.

What "higher critics" are basically doing is simply LONG-DISTANCE PSYCHOANALYSIS of supposed pseudepigraphical Biblical authors. What this and that forger was thinking when he he perpetrated his fraud.

In their hubris, these charlatans think they can put the Scriptures to the psychiatrist's couch and discover their TRUE motivations.

And just like psychoanalysis is being proved to be a soft, soft discipline, so likewise must the lightweight phoniness of higher criticism be exposed.

ANNOYED PINOY SAID:Okay, I'll try to stick with *historical* issue. History doesn't happen nor is it studied in a vacuum. They would also claim that there are archaeological, lingustic and cultural evidences that the Bible isn't historically accurate. There are alleged anachronistic words, and customs used/described in the Bible that show it's erroneous. There are archaeological discoveries that supposedly disprove the Bible's story too. The "raw uninterpreted and brute facts" (a nod to Van Til)neutrally testify against the Bible. They aren't biased human beings prone to error and dishonesty like we've experienced in ever age. From their perspective, why exclude the writers/compilers of the Bible?

****************************

1. First of all, you continue to miss the point. Archeologists didn't witness the purported events. They don't know anyone contemporaneous with the purported events. So my point still stands.

My scope of my conundrum was quite specific; nothing more and nothing less than the terms in which it was given.

For some reason you seem to find it difficult to confine yourself to the actual confines of my conundrum.

2. As for archeology, apart from my conundrum, I don't know your sources of information. In general, archeology corroborates the Bible. I don't know of any archeological find that presents positive evidence which is at odds with Bible history.

On the one hand, archeological evidence can be ambiguous.

On the other hand, it's also possible to misread Biblical descriptions. A specious conflict can arise in either case.

Of course the very scientific, historical, and archaeological constructs put forward by the scholarly community tend to conflict with each other. Not to mention they are badly underdetermined by the evidence. After reading a few secular reconstructions of Israelite history I came to see that they disagree with one another more than the the biblical writers are supposed to disagree with one another!

My scope of my conundrum was quite specific; nothing more and nothing less than the terms in which it was given.

For some reason you seem to find it difficult to confine yourself to the actual confines of my conundrum.

Deductively, your conundrum itself makes the point you want it to make. But that's not going to impress any skeptic since there are (supposedly) inductive facts that seriously call into question or flat out refute Christian claims.

Being skeptics, they might propose an alternative hypothesis (or many) to account for the data we have, but at the end of the day, they can (consistently) admit they are speculating and that they may be just as wrong as the Biblical documents and authors are/were. Documents written by people who have an agenda to push. I mean (they mean [grin]), the documents *themselves* admit that they were written "that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God" (etc). Skeptics would go on to say the early Christians were so eager for people to accept Christianity that the Christians moulded their Jesus myth after the pagan myths.

Besides, what kind of God would use the method of scribal transmission (notoriously error prone) to pass on what's supposedly the greatest and most vital message of all? And to use fallible and dishonest human beings to do it rather than angelic heralds. Of the 5700 (and counting) NT manuscripts/fragments no two are exactly alike. Why didn't God make the autographs indestructible? If they were impervious to fires, floods, ketchup spills and nuclear bombs, that would go a long way in supporting Christian supernatural claims. From skeptical perspectives, your abstract conundrum doesn't touch reality.

Moreover, they will claim that their abductive hypothesis does better at providing greater explanatory power and scope than the "Christian hypothesis" (though I wouldn't call it a hypothesis).

That's why I'd eventually get to the issue of worldviews. What their philosophy of fact and philoosphy of history is.

“Deductively, your conundrum itself makes the point you want it to make. But that's not going to impress any skeptic since there are (supposedly) inductive facts that seriously call into question or flat out refute Christian claims.”

Which is still irrelevant. What’s your problem? Are you looking for a silver bullet? The fact that my conundrum doesn’t address every other conceivable objection to Christianity is beside the point.

This is how it goes:

Argument>counterargument

I can address one objection at a time on its own terms. Over time, that adds up.

“Being skeptics, they might propose an alternative hypothesis (or many) to account for the data we have, but at the end of the day, they can (consistently) admit they are speculating and that they may be just as wrong as the Biblical documents and authors are/were. Documents written by people who have an agenda to push. I mean (they mean [grin]), the documents *themselves* admit that they were written "that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God" (etc). Skeptics would go on to say the early Christians were so eager for people to accept Christianity that the Christians moulded their Jesus myth after the pagan myths.”

You’re beginning to sound like a village atheist. Who’s the real Annoyed Pinoy? Is he a Christian masquerading as an atheist, or an atheist masquerading as a Christians? Inquiring minds want to know.

It’s not as if I haven’t addressed these specific objections before. Were you asleep?

“Besides, what kind of God would use the method of scribal transmission (notoriously error prone) to pass on what's supposedly the greatest and most vital message of all? And to use fallible and dishonest human beings to do it rather than angelic heralds. Of the 5700 (and counting) NT manuscripts/fragments no two are exactly alike. Why didn't God make the autographs indestructible? If they were impervious to fires, floods, ketchup spills and nuclear bombs, that would go a long way in supporting Christian supernatural claims. From skeptical perspectives, your abstract conundrum doesn't touch reality.”

Why do you sound like a mouthpiece for Bart Ehrman? Did you undergo a body swap? Is Bart Ehrman now walking around in the body of Annoyed Pinoy–like something out of Men in Black?

Once again, you’re simply rehashing stale objections which have been dealt with on many different occasions. I have better things to do with my time than repeat myself.

And my conundrum touches the reality of the specific objection it was targeting.

“Moreover, they will claim that their abductive hypothesis does better at providing greater explanatory power and scope than the ‘Christian hypothesis" (though I wouldn't call it a hypothesis).’

Yada yada yada.

“That's why I'd eventually get to the issue of worldviews. What their philosophy of fact and philoosphy of history is.”

i) To begin with, you’re not actually doing apologetics–Van Titian or otherwise. You’re just whining about how others do apologetics. If you think you can to a better job, then lead by example.

ii) Moreover, you act as though the unbelievers have us beat on the “facts,” so our only recourse is to counterattack with historiography, &c.

Put another way, you act as if you’re running scared. They’ve got you spooked. So we have to abandon our burnt-out trenches and head for the high ground. Well, I don’t think they have us beat on any front.

Steve said...Are you looking for a silver bullet? The fact that my conundrum doesn’t address every other conceivable objection to Christianity is beside the point.

I'm not looking for a silver bullet. There isn't one. I believe apologetics should use all kinds of evidences and arguments like the kinds you and the other Triabloggers use (historical, scientific, existential, textual, logical, philosophical et cetera).

Nor do I think every argument should deal with every possible objection to Christianity (it's just impossible). I granted that your conundrum does result in skeptics using a self-refuting position. My point was that skeptics wouldn't find the conundrum interesting because from their perspective it doesn't deal with "the facts".

I suppose I was really writing my posts with the atheists (who are monitoring this blog) in mind.

It’s not as if I haven’t addressed these specific objections before. Were you asleep?

Yes, you (and the other Triabloggers) have addressed these (and many other) objections before. I'm just fearful that new atheistic readers get the wrong impression that you all haven't because of the jejune nature of your conundrum. I'm also for the use of counterarguments that directly and narrowly address an opposing argument. However, I guess what I'm trying to say is that from the skeptics' perspective, the conundrum is a strawman argument because it strips too much away from their arguments.

You’re beginning to sound like a village atheist. Who’s the real Annoyed Pinoy? Is he a Christian masquerading as an atheist, or an atheist masquerading as a Christians? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why do you sound like a mouthpiece for Bart Ehrman?

I was specifically trying to mimic their bad arguments. Especially those of the village atheist. Obviously I don't think those are good arguments. I think there are better atheistic arguments that can be made. I won't mention them lest I contribute to the further hardening of the hearts of skeptical readers; or worse, stumble fellow believers.

To answer your question, I am, by God's grace, a Christian who was masquerading as an ignorant atheist. I think that 1st century Christians had the right to promote what they (correctly) believed to be the truth (for that matter, any Christian in any century). There's nothing wrong with the Gospel writers admitting that they wrote them for the purpose of producing faith in their readers. They're just being honest. It's the skeptics who often put on the mask of "objectivity" and claim that they're just following the facts. When in fact, they are often just as zealous to evangelize for their anti-theism (not merely atheism or agnosticism) as theists are for their brand of theism.

I believe that the OT and NT scriptures have been providentially preserved by God and that the textual variants actually support the tenacity of the text. When it come to the alleged parallels to pagan myths, they usually aren't parallels at all. IF there were any parallels, God could have providentially mimiced (in actual incarnational history) those pagan myths to say that Christ is the reality that those false unhistorical myths wish were true. Myths that reveal the longing of men's hearts for a Savior God. Similar to how C.S. Lewis argues that Christianity is mythology "come true" in space and time.

It’s not as if I haven’t addressed these specific objections before. Were you asleep?

You have many, many, many, many, many times. Those were GREAT arguments. But in comparison, your current conundrum seems superfluous. It seems, to little ole' me, that it didn't need to be said (especially since you've said nearly the exact same thing in other blogs). You have such great arguments, that the conundrum seems unworthy of your abilities. I just feared that new skeptical readers might possibly dismiss you (and the entire blog) because this particular argument might seem (at least to them) like tackling a strawman misrepresentation of what they really believe.

i) To begin with, you’re not actually doing apologetics–Van Titian or otherwise. You’re just whining about how others do apologetics. If you think you can to a better job, then lead by example.

Though I might be whining, I don't mean to.

ii) Moreover, you act as though the unbelievers have us beat on the “facts,” so our only recourse is to counterattack with historiography, &c.

I don't believe they have us beat on the "facts".

Put another way, you act as if you’re running scared. They’ve got you spooked. So we have to abandon our burnt-out trenches and head for the high ground.

I can see how you got that impression. That's all my fault. I should have phrased my commments in a way that made clearer how I believe skeptics would respond to the conundrum.